Are you a weak or strong theist?
Offline A good deal of people are 'weak theists'. This means that they have the potential to allow for the possiblity of God's existence, but don't actually hold an affirmative belief in God. They usually hold to this position because they stumbled onto some atheist blog or website and consider themselves superior to others for discovering such a scandalous & new idea.
If you are one such person then it might interest you to know that your doubt actually makes you a theist, not an atheist or agnostic! Why is this so? Because I've decided to expand the definition of "theist" to include more people so that I would have the edge in debates. According to this page it's apparently ok to ignore years of the correct etymological definitions. And apparently a position is defined by people who fit the position instead of common usage.
EVERYONE ON EARTH WAS BORN A THEIST!
ALL RRS CORE MEMBERS ARE THEISTS!
ALL RRS CORE MEMBERS BELIEVE THEY ARE MERELY AGNOSTIC OR ATHEIST. BUT THEY ARE IN FACT THEISTS! IT WAS BECAUSE OF MY OPEN MIND THAT I WAS WILLING TO DIVULGE YOUR MISTAKES! What is your mind like? Are you open to the evidence that you might have been lied to about what the terms mean? Do you realize that atheists mispresent the definition of atheism to spread their belief? If so, can you admit they lied about a topic they were highly ignorant of (atheism)?
- Login to post comments
I do love the way you contradict yourself at the last. Also, I never said you claimed knowledge of the universe - what I said is you have no problems making knowledge claims concerning your god. You claim no knowledge of God (agnosticism) but claim to know what type of God he is (the classic deist form).
You don't read what you post, do you?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Thomathy - I find it interesting that atheists never find the discussion pointless when engaging in sophistry and trick questions while attacking theist beliefs. You guys are just miffed that it's your own beliefs coming under question and that I don't believe in the traditional deity which isn't easy to attack. That's no grounds however for claiming that I refuse to define my position.
That's not contradiction. Unlike you, I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong in certain instances. Unfortunately my original post is still valid - the lack of belief definition that atheists have fabricated is total BS.
Is this a joke or what? I find it really hard to believe that anybody can be this dense. As I've said like 5 times, I never claimed to have any knowledge, I'm simply offering up my opinion on what I think it is. If you still need help grasping this childishly simple concept, send me a PM.
Also, ffs, will you learn how to cut out the part of the post that you're replying to? No need to quote the entire wall of text when you're responding to one sentence. This discussion is already long-winded enough. <_<
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Okay, why do you find it likely that the universe is created, when you don't know if it was created by accident?
No, I can just safely say that physical beings would be perceptible, and "extradimensional beings" is a concept that you haven't been clear on. I'm not actually sure if it's possible to detect those, and I don't have any reason to believe that they exist anyway.
Well we do have one example of life on a world, so at least I have an example of life. Do you have an example of an extra-dimensional being you'd like to share?
No, they're not. I've given you reasons to believe what I'm saying. I understand if you aren't convinced, but my statements are not bald assertions. I was talking about the possibility of detecting physical beings. You were assuming that "extra-dimensional beings" exist, and that we will one day be able to detect them. I'm saying you're making that up. You haven't outlined what an extra-dimensional being would be, because it's pure fiction. You just expect me to take whatever you say as plausible without any reason.
No, we work to find confirmation. It's not the same thing to make a mathematical model as it is to suggest a magical or extra-dimentional something-that-you-don't-know-what-it-is.
Well they are crazy mathematicians. Have you ever met a theoretical physicist? I mean, the math is fun and everything, but there have been lots of failed models. That's not to say you don't keep trying.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that no theory for the origin of the universe has evidence for it? That would be an unusual claim.
You don't have to "doubt", it's impossible. Unless you have a hypothesis, there will be no evidence. Ever.
Wow, really. That's fascinating. Are you aware that time and space are connected? So the word "eternal" loses a little bit of meaning in that light. Saying that everything must be eternal and then trying to extend it to a mathematical model without any math is really stretching it.
Okay, so we have the time machine, and the technical ability to "go back" to before the universe started. What are we looking for?
See, I'm not saying that you can't form a hypothesis statement, I'm saying that any hypothesis statement involving a being about which you have no knowledge will be incoherent.
You're suggesting that the correct answer is "deity", and so all the mathematicians should pack up what they're doing, problem solved. And I'm the one who's advocating intellectual laziness?
Yes, there is a constant need for evidence, because that's how we know the mathematical model is right or wrong in varying degrees.
You're assuming that multiverse (or a single expanding and contracting universe) have no indirect evidence to back them up. Here's an article outlining the state of the art with a telling punchline:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070702_mm_big_bang.html
Right. Like I said: you don't know what it is, but it's a god.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I'm willing to admit I'm wrong - when I'm wrong. Am I wrong about you that you make knowledge claims without backup? You claim that the lack of belief definition is bull. You've been shown otherwise. You ignore this and carry on with your claim. You claim knowledge that the universe was created and how (claiming that an extra-dimensional magic man makes more sense and requires fewer assumptions than anything else.
I have a disbelief in God (an inability to believe) without evidence. Until I get the evidence, I lack the ability to belief (oh crap that's a lack of belief). Disbelief is not only denial.
You want the discussion to be shorter? Stop talking crap.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I think his point is a lack of belief is really a positive denial in disguise. Something like the Christian saying "You really believe in God but you deny him because you don't want to be accountable to him".
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Interesting. Wrong, but interesting. Of course, how could we really believe in what this guy is talking about? He's the only one who believes in the god he's positing. Or at least, the only one I know of. I don't suppose we could know for sure since he refuses to illustrate his god for us or can't, which isn't really helpful when you want to know something or believe in it, but whatever!
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I didn't read it that way. I thought the point was that atheists don't just lack a belief in a god, they actually disbelieve in a god or gods. I'm comfortable with that, since I don't believe anything said so far. So I certainly don't believe in any conception of a god I've read. That's a positive statement.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I just don't believe Aedus. And why should any of us? He's come here, professing an agnostic deist belief that he somehow defends with 'logic' built for other gods and arguments for the existence of the Christian god and Creationism. He can't even tell us what it is he believes in. It's not that I don't believe in his god, I mean I don't; I can't. I don't believe him. This is like the kid down the street telling you he knows of a secret passage to a monster world that open under his bed at night (obscure movie reference, can you guess which movie it is?). You just don't believe him.
There is no compelling reason for anyone to believe you Aedus. There is no compelling reason for anyone to believe what you believe in based on your ...testimony.
Wow. (Will can appreciate that one!)
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I'm trying to give a person who doesn't seem to know what he's taking about a way to hang on - I guess I'm too old and forgiving.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
First off, you guys are aware that my original post is a parody of one of these site's articles? I do not actually think all people are theists. Are we clear on this?
Wrong. It is NOT an inability to believe - you pulled that definition clear out of your ass. Disbelief is either doubt or rejection of something. A newborn does not doubt or reject God when it is born. Please start making sense from now on.
Actually there is no evidence in that article at all. They're just saying that it's nice that the model could predict things before the big bang. There's no proof/evidence that it's correct.
lol. That does not mean that any kind of causality did not exist before the big bang. If it didn't, then we wouldn't exist. Again, if the first cause is not eternal, then it just popped out of literal nothingness. This is basic logic. Do you take up the position then that the first cause came out of literal nothingness? If you even think that it is possible, then just say so. If you don't, then quit beating around the bush and bringing it up.
rofl. Let's see here. You guys hijack this topic by asking irrelevant questions about my beliefs because you need something to attack, and when I defend myself you decide to paint me the bad guy by claiming that "I never told you what I believe in"?
What the fuck? My beliefs are not remotely relevant to this debate. It's the flawed definition of atheism which atheists have fabricated that I would like to discuss. However, since you're so hell-bent on my beliefs, I'll play along & give them to you:
I believe that the universe has a creator who has the following attributes:
1) Eternal existence.
2) Intelligence which he applied to the universe's creation.
I believe the creator exists outside of this universe and has left behind no evidence of his existence for us (read: therefore NOT god-of-the-gaps). He is like a clockmaker, creating the universe and letting it run on its own - content to either ignore or watch it. Why do I believe this? Because eventually, once you come to the first cause, it makes more sense for that cause to be God than the universe itself. Can I prove or find evidence for this? No. Why do I believe this? Because it's easier to just accept that God is beyond our ken and he was responsible for all of creation than simply stating that the universe, with all of its intracacy & complexity, exists for no apparent reason. It's like grasping at straws. Also, in the universe, "nothing" is the rule, and "something" is the exception. I am inclined to believe that "nothing" should be the default state of the universe, if it were to exist for eternity.
Wow - I have all of dictionary.com in my ass. Impressive, yes?
You see, just for shits and giggles, I decided to look up the word disbelief. It is defined as "the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true".
See that "or" there, diphthong? One of those important distinctions you might have missed.
Whilst I do appreciate your parody, methinks the true parody is your deism.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Newsflash: even if we go with disbelief as "the inability to accept something as true," the "inability" comes AFTER you've been exposed to the idea. If you disagree, you're wrong, since disbelief is ALWAYS in response to an idea according to any other definition you look at.
I find your condescending tone especially hilarious right now due to the fact that you ended up being completely wrong. lawl.
Yes, I know. The part about evidence validating the mathematical model was the punchline.
I would love for you to show us your model of causality without time. Go on, give us causality without time. I'll wait.
The argument you're making is so nonsensical at this point that you're giving us "if causality didn't exist before the big bang, then we wouldn't exist". What's odd about that statement is that time didn't exist until space did, and we DO exist, thus contradicting your "basic logic".
And yet, you keep repeating that you would accept accidental creation as still being creation. That's plain equivocation.
That's precisely why your deistic idea is bizarre, though. You're more comfortable with making up a reason for the universe's existence than not knowing what it is. There's "no apparent reason" to you that the universe exists, and "it's easier to accept" a version of things that is unconfirmable.
What is implicit in your argument is that complexity necessitates design. You would actually have to show that complexity necessitates design for any of what you're saying to make sense.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
This is not in dispute - you can lack belief in something after you hear a claim people want you to believe. Acknowledging that someone makes a claim is not the same as belief.
Or do you really think that you have to believe a claim before you disbelieve it? Sound like the Christians that say you have to believe in God before you can really believe in God.
Glad you got a laugh - maybe this will help you get a clue.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Time in the traditional sense started at the big bang. Time could have existed in some other sense before the big bang along with causality. If you disagree then prove that it's not possible. I'll wait.
No, the fact that we exist proves that your previous assertion was wrong and my "basic logic" was correct. Prove to me that causality didn't exist before the big bang and then your position might have a bit of credibility.
You are contradicting basic science here anyway. No scientist actually thinks that the big bang started itself, due to the fact that it's a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
I would. But I think my alternative is more likely.
It's too bad that "I don't know what it is" any way I go, and it's unconfirmable either way - so your claim is clearly wrong. I'm not making up any explanation - I just have an opinion on what I think it is.
It does make sense - but it can't be proven as fact. I gave you links to other atheists/agnostics that agreed with this opinion in that other thread, and you ignored it, so there's not really any way for this dialog to progress. Just like I could also claim that the possibility of ET life is superstitious & illogical - you haven't proven that it isn't.
Your position basically boils down to "I don't care about any reasons you bring up, if you can't prove your point 100% then you are not allowed to hold this belief." There is no potential for dialog here because you think a complete knowledge of the universe is required to go along with a belief in a Creator. It would be like me telling you that you can't believe in evolution unless you specifically know every single aspect of it. Hell, you didn't even address the reasons I gave for why I think God should be eternal instead of the universe. However, if you want to go with "the simplest explanation" then see my other thread for why it should be a creator.
I think you have to know what the claim is in the first place to disbelieve it, as indicated by practically every single dictionary.
Good, now lets add 1 + 1. You've established that it's possible to have a lack of belief in god - like agnostics for example. However, that is not atheism.
Do you think that everyone who disbelieves has a "lack of belief"? Do you also believe that since dogs have fur anything with fur is a dog?
Agnosticism is a standard of knowledge not belief. You claim to be an agnostic deist, that is, you claim to not know whether a god exists or not but you believe that the deist one fits you better.
I am an agnostic atheist - I do not know whether a god exists either (lack of evidence). Because I don't know, I do not have the ability to believe. Knowledge of a claim does not entail a belief in said claim.
You've forgotten the definition of disbelief - it states "inability or refusal to believe..." One can be unable to believe or refuse to believe and still fit the definition. Do I need to get you a scrip for Abilify?
Again, get a clue before you post.
Again, get a clue before you post.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
So, you started by posting an angry tirade mocking an article for semantics, then you spent a considerable amount of your time angrily defending your cosmological argument from ignorance, and now you are angrily telling everyone you don't care about anything they think or say and they should all shut up and leave you alone and how dumb they all are and how your logic is perfect and you are perfect and god is real and miracles really do happen and they are just dumb-headed stupid butts.
You seem very tense. Maybe you should take a break and pray for a while.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
will - also, the best natural explanation we will ever get for ultimate origins is that something is eternal and that's just the way it is. Unfortunately that is not an explanation. You should always stick to natural explanations when it is possible. But when you reach a point where you can't (which we have to assume we never will), then explanations become the realm of philosophy & reasoning.
jcgadfly - way to ignore practically everything I posted. Even after I get done explaining why you misunderstood that definition of disbelief all you can come back with is "no u". Unfortunately that's not a valid debate tactic. I'll go ahead & assume that logic & critical thinking will not sway you, so you should stick to making snide side-remarks like you've been doing instead of engaging in actual discourse.
You're probably just butthurt that I shattered your ignorant view of atheism's definition. Semantics? Funny how it's always called "semantics" and "sophism" when you end up being wrong, but it's called "reading comprehension" and "debate" in any other situation. rofl
From the New Oxford American Dictionary:
ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god.’
NOTE: without, not rejection of.
A 'cause' may be an infinitesimal 'event', occurring at a finite time in the past, even if the ultimate origin is an infinite regress of 'cause-effect' elements. This is a mathematical/logical category that is neither zero nor finite. It is related to the concept of fractals, which is applied in the concept of a 'quantum foam'.
If you want to call an infinitesimal cause 'God' that's your decision, it just doesn't seem to fit with any common ideas of God. Certainly doesn't seem to allow for intelligence of any form. It certainly does not logically require intelligence.
The eternal existence of such a fundamental, basic elementary background seems infinitely more plausible than any sort of sentient God. Not that I see any compelling reason to assume the necessary eternal existence of anything.
Eternal existence is no less logically problematic that 'something from nothing'. Something from an infinitesimal is not quite the same, the concept of something whose size approaches zero as close as required to be consistent with all possible tests without actually being zero is the basis of Calculus and the resolution of Zeno's famous paradoxes. Quantum theory suggests that in reality we don't need it to be much less than the Planck scale, further avoiding any logical problems.
It is this jump from 'first cause' to something with sentience which is totally unjustified. Mental events/decisions still require a cause, preceding mental events, so it doesn't really avoid the issue it attempts to, just moves it back into another 'realm'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I don't really want to debate you, but uuuhh, this analogy doesn't make any sense at all.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
You're projecting again. it's tiresome
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You're cute when you try to rationalize your petty behavior!
I have a decent amount of respect for many theists and the way they argue, and even for the content of their arguments. But you have shown nothing but a desire to be a childish, petulant, troll. All you are doing is saying, "nyah-nyah, I'm right and you're wrong!" with your fingers in your ears.
Seriously, go calm down then come back when you feel better.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I think it's best to let the argument stand as is. If it's too difficult to see that time and space are interconnected, and if there's no space, then there's no time ... I'm at a loss.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Bob - atheos is only part of the word's etymology. The rest is "-ism," which means belief. Together it means "godless belief."
Then what would be the alternative? And why would it make more sense than eternal existence?
Scroll down to #8: http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_2.htm
For the record, these "agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist" terms are contradictory, if you want to get technical, but since so many people use them & know what others mean by them there's no point in stopping to use them.
Sure, my first post may been childish, even though it was just a parody of an equally childish article, but that's why I've been ignoring all your guys' flamebaiting up till a few posts ago - you're welcome.
That's great, except that you're biased and are ignoring what everyone else is doing. You have any examples of your claim? Because I can give you some examples that other people are doing what you accuse me of:
1) Keep insisting that I'm making some sort of god-of-the-gaps from ignorance despite the fact that I've made it clear many times that I don't see God as having any explanatory power in the natural world.
2) Keep ignoring the fact that disbelief is only in response to something.
3) Keep insisting on a "need for evidence" when I've shown how it would be ridiculous to apply this to everything else, like ET life & beliefs.
You won't convince me of anything by pointing out there are jerks in the forum, I won't disagree with you!
1) Why did you write something like that, instead of just saying, "I'm a deist and I think you are using the word atheist incorrectly". That is your whole point, right? As to your point, isn't it illogical to say you believe in something that exists outside of the natural world? You don't even have to answer this though, since I am sure it has come up already, but you have to give us evidence that something exists outside the natural world for us to care in the slightest, which you can't, because it exists outside the natural world.
2) People believe in many things that are not true. Or are you just saying that, because some people believe in some sort of deity, that they must exist? When I bring up fairies, are you just going to say that they are a response to the built in belief in the supernatural? I just want to clarify, because that position does not seem very defensible to me.
3) Again, isn't this irrational? I am not even talking about fancy logic, but the basic premise that something exists totally outside of our reality, but then saying you can believe in it passionately does not make any sense to me.
Your position is not uncommon. I have pointed it out before, deism is the last refuge of an intelligent theist who knows they cannot make positive claims about the supernatural anymore.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Without a belief in God, sure. A 'godless' belief is a belief that does not contain, require, or assume a god. It lacks a God. Just like a waterless desert does contain water. Still leaves the assertiveness of the particular person's approach open.
You really are straining at semantics here.
The alternative is simply that it started to exist at a finite time in the past, and that I see no problem with that compared to 'eternal'.
You should note that I did NOT actually say there that it 'make[s] more sense', I just said I find no compelling reason to assume it does.
You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
The basic problem I have with 'eternal' is the implication of something existing with no beginning, unless that 'thing' is the irreducible background of existence, something that the concept of a 'quantum foam' seems a reasonable candidate for such a thing, especially as it is based on what we actually seem to find in our research in physics. My feelings about this are based on a lifetime of following the progress of science and my personal observations and experiences of the ways things seem to be. So all I can claim is that it makes at least as much, if not more, sense to me, based on that experience.
I have no problem with something starting to exist, the idea of something emerging from virtual nothingness ( almost but not exactly nothing ), a finite, or perhaps indefinitely long time in the past. Note - not quite 'infinite', just like infinitesimal is not quite zero.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology